The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine

Few understand how the Trinity doctrine came to be accepted - several centuries after the Bible was completed! Yet its roots go back much farther in history.

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

Most people assume that everything that bears the label "Christian" must have originated with Jesus Christ and His early followers. But this is definitely not the case. All we have to do is look at the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles to see that this is clearly not true.

The historical record shows that, just as Jesus and the New Testament writers foretold, various heretical ideas and teachers rose up from within the early Church and infiltrated it from without. Christ Himself warned His followers: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).

You can read many similar warnings in other passages (such as Matthew 24:11; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 2:18-19, 26; 4:1-3).

Barely two decades after Christ's death and resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote that many believers were already "turning away . . . to a different gospel" (Galatians 1:6). He wrote that he was forced to contend with "false apostles, deceitful workers" who were fraudulently "transforming themselves into apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13). One of the major problems he had to deal with was "false brethren" (verse 26).

By late in the first century, as we see from 3 John 9-10, conditions had grown so dire that false ministers openly refused to receive representatives of the apostle John and were excommunicating true Christians from the Church!

Of this troubling period Edward Gibbon, the famed historian, wrote in his classic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of a "dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church" (1821, Vol. 2, p. 111). It wasn't long before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism, common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ.

Historian Jesse Hurlbut says of this time of transformation: "We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D., 'The Age of Shadows,' partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church's] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history . . ."For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul" ( The Story of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33).

This "very different" church would grow in power and influence, and within a few short centuries would come to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire! By the second century, faithful members of the Church, Christ's "little flock" (Luke 12:32), had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity but were in reality teaching "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6-9).

This was the setting in which the doctrine of the Trinity emerged. In those early decades after Jesus Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, and spanning the next few centuries, various ideas sprang up as to His exact nature. Was He man? Was He God? Was He God appearing as a man? Was He an illusion? Was He a mere man who became God? Was He created by God the Father, or did He exist eternally with the Father?

All of these ideas had their proponents. The unity of belief of the original Church was lost as new beliefs, many borrowed or adapted from pagan religions, replaced the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Let us be clear that when it comes to the intellectual and theological debates in those early centuries that led to the formulation of the Trinity, the true Church was largely absent from the scene, having been driven underground. (See the chapter "The Rise of a Counterfeit Christianity " in our free booklet The Church Jesus Built for an overview of this critical period.).

For this reason, in that stormy period we often see debates not between truth and error, but between one error and a different error— a fact seldom recognized by many modern scholars yet critical for our understanding.

A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicaea (in modern-day western Turkey) in A.D. 325.

Constantine, although held by many to be the first "Christian" Roman Emperor, was actually a sun-worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to "the detestable Jewish crowd" and "the customs of these most wicked men"—customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Jesus and the apostles.

As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified. He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. This was, in fact, one of his primary motivations in accepting and sanctioning the "Christian" religion (which, by this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and was Christian in name only)

. But now Constantine faced a new challenge. Religion researcher Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God that "one of the first problems that had to be solved was the doctrine of God . . . a new danger arose from within which split Christians into bitterly warring camps" (1993, p. 106).

Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 as much for political reasons—for unity in the empire—as religious ones. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy.

"In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.

"Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound" (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, 1954, Vol. 1, p. 258).

Arius, a priest from Alexandria, Egypt, taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was a special creation of God. Further, if Jesus was the Son, the Father of necessity must be older. Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism wherein the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other.

The decision as to which view the church council would accept was to a large extent arbitrary. Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God: "When the bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, to resolve the crisis, very few would have shared Athanasius's view of Christ. Most held a position midway between Athanasius and Arius" (p. 110).

As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. (The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned).

Historian Henry Chadwick attests, "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun" ( The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor's embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, "His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear" (p. 125).

Chadwick does say that Constantine's deathbed baptism itself "implies no doubt about his Christian belief," it being common for rulers to put off baptism to avoid accountability for things like torture and executing criminals (p. 127). But this justification doesn't really help the case for the emperor's conversion being genuine.

Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: "Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)" ( A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48).

When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination" (1971 edition, Vol. 6, "Constantine," p. 386).

With the emperor's approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending.

The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge!

The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy. Karen Armstrong explains: "Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates . . . with the emperor breathing down their necks . . .

"The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It was very difficult to make his creed stick" (pp. 110-111).

The ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes, "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome" ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). Atrociously, while claiming to be Christian many believers fought and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God!

Of the following decades, Professor Harold Brown, cited earlier, writes: "During the middle decades of this century, from 340 to 380, the history of doctrine looks more like the history of court and church intrigues and social unrest . . . The central doctrines hammered out in this period often appear to have been put through by intrigue or mob violence rather than by the common consent of Christendom led by the Holy Spirit" (p. 119).

Disagreements soon centered around another issue, the nature of the Holy Spirit. In that regard, the statement issued at the Council of Nicaea said simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit." This "seemed to have been added to Athanasius's creed almost as an afterthought," writes Karen Armstrong. "People were confused about the Holy Spirit. Was it simply a synonym for God or was it something more?" (p. 115).

Professor Ryrie, also cited earlier,writes, "In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor [today central Turkey] gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity" (p. 65). They proposed an idea that was a step beyond Athanasius' view—that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit were coequal and together in one being, yet also distinct from one another.

These men—Basil, bishop of Caesarea, his brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus—were all "trained in Greek philosophy" (Armstrong, p. 113), which no doubt affected their outlook and beliefs (see "Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine," beginning on page 14).

In their view, as Karen Armstrong explains, "the Trinity only made sense as a mystical or spiritual experience . . . It was not a logical or intellectual formulation but an imaginative paradigm that confounded reason. Gregory of Nazianzus made this clear when he explained that contemplation of the Three in One induced a profound and overwhelming emotion that confounded thought and intellectual clarity.

"'No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me'" (p. 117). Little wonder that, as Armstrong concludes, "For many Western Christians . . . the Trinity is simply baffling" (ibid.).

In the year 381, 44 years after Constantine's death, Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the Council of Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) to resolve these disputes. Gregory of Nazianzus, recently appointed as archbishop of Constantinople, presided over the council and urged the adoption of his view of the Holy Spirit.

Historian Charles Freeman states: "Virtually nothing is known of the theological debates of the council of 381, but Gregory was certainly hoping to get some acceptance of his belief that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father [meaning that the persons are of the same being, as substance in this context denotes individual quality].

"Whether he dealt with the matter clumsily or whether there was simply no chance of consensus, the 'Macedonians,' bishops who refused to accept the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, left the council . . . Typically, Gregory berated the bishops for preferring to have a majority rather than simply accepting 'the Divine Word' of the Trinity on his authority" ( A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State, 2008, p. 96).

Gregory soon became ill and had to withdraw from the council. Who would preside now? "So it was that one Nectarius, an elderly city senator who had been a popular prefect in the city as a result of his patronage of the games, but who was still not a baptized Christian, was selected . . . Nectarius appeared to know no theology, and he had to be initiated into the required faith before being baptized and consecrated" (Freeman, pp. 97-98).

Bizarrely, a man who up to this point wasn't a Christian was appointed to preside over a major church council tasked with determining what it would teach regarding the nature of God!

The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians "made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture" ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "God," p. 568).

The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets . . ." The statement also affirmed belief "in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church . . ."

With this declaration in 381, which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God.

Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council's decision "was to reduce the meanings of the word 'God' from a very large selection of alternatives to one only," such that "when Western man today says 'God' he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else" ( Studies in Christian Antiquity, 1985,pp. 243-244).

Thus, Emperor Theodosius—who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council—was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes: "It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor's laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved" (p. 103).

Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: "We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead" (quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).

Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching: "Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.

"They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict" (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22).

Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly. Trinity doctrine decided by trial and error.

This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of "a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years . . . In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox . . . It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way" (1980, p. 172).

They then conclude: "This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answer to the question, 'How divine is Jesus Christ?' . . . If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one" (p. 175).

Anglican churchman and Oxford University lecturer K.E. Kirk revealingly writes of the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity: "The theological and philosophical vindication of the divinity of the Spirit begins in the fourth century; we naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that they have none . . .

"This failure of Christian theology . . . to produce logical justification of the cardinal point in its trinitarian doctrine is of the greatest possible significance. We are forced, even before turning to the question of the vindication of the doctrine by experience, to ask ourselves whether theology or philosophy has ever produced any reasons why its belief should be Trinitarian" ("The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Trinity," published in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, A.E.J. Rawlinson, editor, 1928, pp. 221-222). Why believe a teaching that isn't biblical?

This, in brief, is the amazing story of how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be introduced—and how those who refused to accept it came to be branded as heretics or unbelievers.

But should we really base our view of God on a doctrine that isn't spelled out in the Bible, that wasn't formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers and that was "decided by the method of trial and error"?

Of course not. We should instead look to the Word of God—not to ideas of men—to see how our Creator reveals Himself!

“Since Jesus said those words perhaps if you studied His words more there would be no need to ask me.”

If you can’t even explain them yourself, perhaps it’s you who does not understand them.

“He also said taking in knowledge meant eternal life.”

I’ve seen gnostics say this. The knowledge is of Christ, which is revealed by God directly.

Observe:

Joh_11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Saving knowledge is faith in Jesus Christ.

Mat 16:16-17 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Unless God reveals it, no man can call Jesus Lord.

Thus, the knowledge is Christ, and the knowledge is revealed by God. There is no such thing as a man accumulating his own knowledge and finding Christ with his own good sense or righteousness.

“Repentance? Peter preached to the crowd to get saved from that crooked generation by repentance and baptism.”

The Apostles preached the Gospel, which is of grace, not of works to merit what is called a free gift.

“What do you think? Jesus...Peter ...Paul? Were they engaging in “double-talk”?”

You haven’t quoted any of them, nor explained how they support your view, so obviously I don’t consider THEM double talkers.

“Yeah, I did say “some”. I can give some more, if you wish.”

Somehow, my indifference is actually profound.

Thank you for your frank opinions, all those caps are not needed though, I can still read the regular type...really.

The all caps was for emphasis only. I wasn't shouting at you. I'll use bold text if you would prefer. ;o)

Buying a couple of interlinears may be of help to you in your studies since the Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek.

We keep coming back to your not so subtle hints that I lack serious Biblical knowledge and education. I can assure you that, just because one doesn't agree with the views of another, it doesn't always translate to there being a deficiency in the study or understanding of the Bible.

The doctrine of the trinity with it's definitions cannot be explained from Scripture but I freely invite you to take that definition of God and explain it.

I am convinced - through extensive and concentrated study - that there most certainly IS a solid Scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Trinity and I am not alone in that view that there is more than adequate Biblical support for it. I acknowledge your right to deny it, but I believe you are wrong when you say the Trinity cannot be explained from Scripture. I have no intentions of repeating ALL the references I have already given nor those of numerous others.

This is a matter of faith in the revelation of Almighty God to show us a major truth concerning His nature. Though we are unable to fully grasp it in all its glory, I believe that in order to be saved we must acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, as the Apostle John spoke:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (I John 4:1-3)

Barnes' Notes on the Bible has this to say about verse 2:

The thing denied does not appear to have been that Jesus was the Messiah, for their pretending to be Christian teachers at all implied that they admitted this; but that the Son of God was "really a man," or that he actually assumed human nature in permanent union with the divine. The point of the remark made by the apostle is, that the acknowledgment was to be that Christ assumed human nature; that he was really a man as he appeared to be: or that there was a real incarnation, in opposition to the opinion that he came in appearance only, or that he merely seemed to be a man, and to suffer and die. That this opinion was held by many, see the Introduction, Section III. 2. It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as those which were held by the "Docetae;" and that he meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of God. John always regarded this as a very important point, and often refers to it, John 19:34-35; John 20:25-27; 1 John 5:6. It is as important to be held now as it was then, for the fact that there was a real incarnation is essential to all just views of the atonement. If he was not truly a man, if he did not literally shed his blood on the cross, of course all that was done was in appearance only, and the whole system of redemption as revealed was merely a splendid illusion. There is little danger that this opinion will be held now, for those who depart from the doctrine laid down in the New Testament in regard to the person and work of Christ, are more disposed to embrace the opinion that he was a mere man; but still it is important that the truth that he was truly incarnate should be held up constantly before the mind, for in no other way can we obtain just views of the atonement.

I agree with this view that unless Jesus was truly the Son of God come in the flesh - which makes him eternally the Son of an Everlasting Father and God - he could not have made atonement for our sins. Only God is without sin and only God could make propitiation for sin. Jesus is our Kinsman Redeemer. Look up that reference as it is spoken of in the book of Ruth sometime if you want to be knocked off your feet. It is truly amazing how much it prophetically speaks of Christ.

Have a good night.

...belief in Jehovah and His Son, taking in accurate knowledge.

______________________________________

John 5:39-40

English Standard Version (ESV)

³⁹You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Can it be proved that the Father is "Jehovah" from Old Testament passages which are quoted in the New Testament to refer to the Father?

Yes? In the very same way it can be proved that Jesus is "Jehovah" from Old Testament passages which are quoted in the New Testament to refer to Jesus:

Isaiah 44:6 compared to Revelation 22:13 (1:17; 2:10)

In Isaiah 44:6 Jehovah says that He is the first and the last, and there is no other God.
But we earlier showed that Jesus calls Himself "the first and the last" in Revelation 22:13, etc.
So there is no God but Jehovah and He is the first and the last. But Jesus is the first and the last, therefore the term Jehovah must include Jesus!
Psalm 102 compared to Hebrews 1:10-12

We earlier showed that Psalm 102:25-27 is quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12, where v8 shows it is spoken "to the Son." But the context of Psalm 102 shows that the whole chapter is addressed to the same "God." And this God is repeatedly called "Jehovah" (vv 1,12,15,16,18,19,21,22).
Since the "God" addressed in Psalm 102 includes Jesus, and since that God is called "Jehovah," we must conclude that here is a passage in which Jesus is addressed as "Jehovah."
Isaiah 6:1-5,10 compared to John 12:36-43

In Isaiah 6, Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon a throne (v1). He said that his eyes had seen Jehovah of hosts (v5; cf. v3). He was then told to go tell the people that they would see but not understand because they would shut their eyes, etc. (vv 9,10).
In John 12, Jesus said He would be lifted up (die) to draw all people to Himself (vv 32-36). Nevertheless though He (Jesus) did so many signs, yet the people did not believe in Him (v37). Their refusal to believe was a fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied - their hearts were hardened so they would not be converted (vv 39,40).
Then John adds that Isaiah said this "when he saw His glory and spoke of Him" (v41). Vv 42,43 then show clearly that it was Jesus that the people were not confessing. Clearly John is saying that the refusal of the people to believe in Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy Isaiah spoke when he saw His glory and spoke of Him (Jesus). But the original passage in Isaiah said He saw "Jehovah of hosts."
Hence, when Isaiah saw "Jehovah of hosts," he was seeing Jesus!
Isaiah 8:13-15 compared to 1 Peter 2:8

Isaiah 8:13-15 says "Jehovah of hosts" would be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
1 Peter 2:8 quotes this very passage saying it was fulfilled when Israel rejected Jesus and killed Him (see 1 Peter 2:4-8; cf. Acts 4:10,11).
Hence, when the Jews stumbled at Jesus, they were stumbling at Jehovah.
Joel 2:32 compared to Acts 2:16-21 & Romans 10:13

Joel 2:32 - Whosoever calls on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered. This is part of a lengthy prophecy regarding the Messiah's kingdom (vv 28-32).
Acts 2:16-21 quotes this very section from Joel, including that men must "call on the name of the Lord" to be saved. Romans 10:13 likewise quotes it, but the context shows throughout that the "Lord" refers to Jesus (vv 4,6,7,9,12,16). Specifically, calling on the Lord includes confessing the Lord Jesus (vv 9,10).
Acts 22:16 shows we call on the name of the Lord when we are baptized. 1 Corinthians 1:2 then shows that all Christians call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hence, the prediction that, during the reign of the Messiah, men would call on the name of Jehovah is fulfilled in that men call on the name of Jesus.
Isaiah 45:21-23 compared to Philippians 2:10,11

In Isaiah 45:21-23 Jehovah claims "there is no God else besides me," "I am God, and there is none else." (Note: It follows that, if Jesus is not the true God, then He is not God at all.) This one true God swears that "unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Hence, the knees would be bowed, etc., to the true God, Jehovah.
Romans 14:10,11 - This passage quotes the Isaiah passage and says it will be fulfilled when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ. He will be the judge (John 5:22,23).
Philippians 2:10,11 - Then at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue confess. Hence, every knee will bow and confess to "Me" (Jehovah), the one true God. But that is done by men bowing to Jesus and confessing His name.
Note Philippians 2:9. This exaltation of Jesus occurs because God has given Him "the name which is above every name." How can this not include the name "Jehovah"? If Jesus has "the name which is above every name," how can the Father have a higher name? In any case, Jesus' must wear the names of Deity.
http://www.gospelway.com/god/deity-jesus-names.php

John 5:39-40

English Standard Version (ESV)

³⁹You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Cordially,

And Peter quoted David”s words about himself in Ps.16, applying it to the Christ but I don't think he meant David was Jesus.

And no one else thinks that Peter meant that either. Your facile dismissal here of the evidence of the Scriptures I posted in #543 is based on the bizarre assumption that because the Old Testament is used in a particular way in one place in the New Testament that it must be used that way everywhere in New Testament.

Psalm 16 is typological and prophetic. In Acts 2 Peter is referring to David as a prophet and that he foresaw the resurrection. (He was a prophet in the sense of forthtelling the word of God, or speaking forth revelation concerning the present and the future - David died without fulfilling the Psalm.)

Acts 2:31

English Standard Version (ESV)

³¹he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

I think we've established well enough that the Father is not the Son and really don't need to respond to every blog that can be found and a cut and paste done on it.

And no one here says the Father is the Son either. Your straw man is your own error of dividing the Essence and confusing the Persons. As far as a cut and paste job, I have known for over 35 years the Scriptures I posted in #543 , before I had ever heard of the internet. I am sorry that for ease of formatting you stumble.

I have yet to meet a cultist who denies the Deity of Christ who is even aware of the correspondence of these Scriptures, much less has been able to give any sort of coherent response at all to their force. You are no exception as is plainly evident by your evasive and non-responsive reply. It is no surprise. After all, how can one who claims to believe the New Testament rebut the New Testament's explicit interpretation of the Old Testament?

If you don't mind, I will continue to accept the New Testament's interpretation of these Old Testament passages, rather than your interpretation of them:

Isaiah 44:6 quoted in Revelation 22:13 (1:17; 2:10)
Isaiah 6:1-5,10 quoted in John 12:36-43
Psalm 102 quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12
Isaiah 8:13-15 quoted in 1 Peter 2:8
Joel 2:32 quoted in Acts 2:16-21 & Romans 10:13
Isaiah 45:21-23 quoted in Philippians 2:10,11

Every one of which (more could be listed) take an Old Testament passage about Jehovah and applies it to Jesus.

³⁹You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

If you have the wrong Jesus you will not have eternal life.

Cordially,

Paul's quotations of OT Scriptures and his application of of them to the Christ does not equate Jehovah, the Father with Jesus, the Son.

That Peter and Paul, both Jews would write that the Father Jehovah or Yahweh of OT was Jesus the Son of NT is beyond absurd.

Earlier you wrote, (whether your words or the blog authors?):

“Can it be proved that the Father is “Jehovah” from Old Testament passages which are quoted in the New Testament to refer to the Father?
Yes? In the very same way it can be proved that Jesus is “Jehovah” from Old Testament passages which are quoted in the New Testament to refer to Jesus:......”

If Jesus (the Son) is Jehovah (the Father) from the OT, and that is what is being said above unless you meant Jesus is NOT the Son or Jehovah is NOT the Father, then indeed the statement is being made that the Son is the Father.

Perhaps you would like to rephrase without that “strawman” silliness? Yes?

Having dispensed with that....Paul could, under inspiration of the holy spirit, apply OT prophecy spoken to and by Jehovah to His son since Jesus acted as His agent.

Exodus 31:18 says God wrote the first stone tablets with His finger but Paul said to the Galatians (3:19) that the Law was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. So who wrote down the Law? Who spoke to Moses?

Exodus 33:11 says God spoke to Moses “face to face” and later vs. 20, 23 said no man may see Him and yet live.

In order to understand how Paul could apply OT Scripture it must be understood that many persons in the OT were prophetic of the Christ by their actions like David or Moses. Or Jehovah Himself.

And then there is the matter one person acting as an agent of another as that example in Exodus demonstrates.

That Peter and Paul, both Jews would write that the Father Jehovah or Yahweh of OT was Jesus the Son of NT is beyond absurd.

It is only absurd because of your presupposition that Jehovah is the Father alone, as evidenced every time you state "Jehovah (the Father)"

There you go again; dividing the essence of Deity and thus confusing the Persons. That is your error. Both Jesus and the Father are distinct Persons yet BOTH have all the Attributes, Powers and Names of Deity, ie. Jehovah.

Paul could, under inspiration of the holy spirit, apply OT prophecy spoken to and by Jehovah to His son since Jesus acted as His agent.

A mere agent would not possess the aforesaid Attributes, Power and Names of Deity, nor would such an agent be in very nature God, eternally existent, etc. as the New Testament repeatedly states concerning Christ, eg., "Who, being in very nature God", etc.

What other God could he be, other than Jehovah? There is no other God. Yet, Jesus claims to be this God, as these Scriptures explicitly state. Perhaps we should be the ones asking if YOU are the polytheist. Who is this lesser God (Christ) that you are talking about?

Cordially,

“It is only absurd because of your presupposition that Jehovah is the Father alone, as evidenced every time you state “Jehovah (the Father)”

I do have a “presupposition” that the Father is not the Son or vice-versa.

I think Diamond has identified well the pivotal point of confusion here. Jehovah, the personal name the LORD gave Moses, that set Him apart from ALL other gods of the Egyptians (or any others for that matter), IS the name that designates the Almighty God. It's meaning is I AM or the self-existant one. He is the only true God out of the millions of idols invented by men. There is no other god BUT Jehovah and HE has revealed Himself as having a TRIUNE nature. God is revealed as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit so that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but there are not three Gods, only one. Jesus IS identified in Scripture as Jehovah incarnate and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah as the Comforter who would indwell the children of God as the guarantee of our inheritance of heaven.

The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. THE God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who goes by the appellation of JEHOVAH, the I AM.

Diamond is correct by saying that you, and others who believe as you do, divide the essence of Deity and thus confuse the Persons. Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons yet ALL THREE have all the Attributes, Powers and Names of Deity, ie. Jehovah. That IS the definition of the Trinity and I can't think of a better way of expressing this truth.

Unfortunately, the cults are right when they say errors have crept into the church. It even was happening in the time of the Apostles, and it continues today in both Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches. And the problem for all sides is that they become blind to their own shortcomings and are more willing to talk about the mote in their brother' eye instead of the log in their own.

And that is the reason I believe it to be most important to discuss these issues. The only way we're able to see the errors in our theology is by understanding that:

2) scripture is meant to clarify and enlighten us.

Discussing the scriptures, especially with people of diverse backgrounds, is one of the easiest and most excellent ways to understand where we are in error. That is its purpose.

But...that being said...it is important to recognize there were "lines in the sand" that the prophets, the apostles, and many others couldn't tolerate when it came to certain theological or doctrinal errors. We are commanded to follow sound teaching. God does not approve when we willingly reject His teachings and it's to our jeopardy. And we are warned that in the end people will have itching ears gathering teachers they like to hear to themselves.

I am reminded of Jeremiah who was told on a number of occasions that they just didn't want to listen to him. I'm especially reminded of this episode:

Jer 5:25 Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have kept good from you.
Jer 5:26 For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men.
Jer 5:27 Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; therefore they have become great and rich;
Jer 5:28 they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of evil; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy.
Jer 5:29 Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?"
Jer 5:30 An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land:
Jer 5:31 the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?

The reason for the deterioration of Judah was doctrine was being made up and, what was worst, the people not only allowed it but approved of it. They didn't want to hear what God was truly saying. Nor did they want to read what was in the scriptures. It's no better then making a golden calf while God is standing in front of us on Mount Sinai. Thus sin reigned and God's wrath was brought down on their wickedness.

This is a lesson we should all learn from. If anyone doubt the condition of the church today, they should go back and read Jeremiah. There are some frightful similarities.

Paul said the one God was the Father (1 Cor. 8:6)

You didn't include the rest of the verse:

and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live"

He uses the exact same phraseology to describe both God the Father and Jesus Christ. Do you think Paul is telling the Corinthians that instead of multiple gods and lords there is only one of each? Do I need to point out that Jehovah is also called and addressed as "Lord" (Adonai) numerous times in the Old Testament, and also in the New Testament, for example in Acts 7:31, "The voice of the Lord came to Moses." So Who is the other Lord that you are talking about?

Jesus prayed to God calling Him his Father and his God. (John 17th chapter and John 20:17.)

Jesus prayed to the Father because as a man, having voluntarily humbled himself, having for a time laid aside the prerogatives of Deity, under the Law, His position was different than that of God the Father, not His divine nature. Just as a wife's position of authority is lesser than her husband's, but not her human nature.

Jesus also receives prayer in the New Testament. Were Paul or Steven (or anyone else for that matter wrong to pray to Jesus?

In Matt. 28:19 the resurrected Jesus says all power and authority in heaven and earth has been given him. And before it was given him he must not have had it.

Jesus said he had been given the power to judge by whom? The Father. So before this power was given? (John 5:22) Jesus said the Father had life in Himself and had granted to Jesus to have life in himself. (John 5:26)

Same answer. Having greater authority and power doesn't necessarily mean that the person is greater in essence, or that the one who is in subjection to another is inferior in nature to the other. As an earthly husband can be greater in authority and power than his wife without this implying that the wife is an inferior being, God the Father giving authority to his God the Son in no way implies that the Son is not God or is an inferior Being. You are committing a category error by conflating two distinct categories nature and authority.

Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:6

Revelation 22:
¹²“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. ¹³I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
³⁹You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Cordially,

No longer occupying an equal position? Jesus being a human his nature was the same as the Father's who is a spirit?

Jesus "emptied himself" and submitted to taking on human flesh with all the weaknesses it brought with it. Philippians 2:7 says about Christ, "Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form" Other versions say he "made himself of no reputation". And Paul also said in Romans 8:3, "For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh." Then in Hebrews 2:17, it is reiterated, "For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people."

Barnes' Notes explain this passage from Philippians 2:7 as:

(1) that it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. He could not cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and good.

(2) it is conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, the symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn. It is conceivable for a divine being to intermit the exercise of his almighty power, since it cannot be supposed that God is always exerting his power to the utmost. And in like manner there might be for a time a laying aside or intermitting of these manifestations or symbols, which were expressive of the divine glory and perfections. Yet,

(3) this supposes no change in the divine nature, or in the essential glory of the divine perfections. When the sun is obscured by a cloud, or in an eclipse, there is no real change of its glory, nor are his beams extinguished, nor is the sun himself in any measure changed. His luster is only for a time obscured. So it might have been in regard to the manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Of course there is much in regard to this which is obscure, but the language of the apostle undoubtedly implies more than that he took an humble place, or that he demeaned himself in an humble manner. In regard to the actual change respecting his manifestations in heaven, or the withdrawing of the symbols of his glory there, the Scriptures are nearly silent, and conjecture is useless - perhaps improper. The language before us fairly implies that he laid aside that which was expressive of his being divine - that glory which is involved in the phrase "being in the form of God" - and took upon himself another form and manifestation in the condition of a servant.

That is why we can know that Jesus always remained the Son of God - even as he took on human flesh - and this was in submission as a servant so that he could be under the law and be the redeemer of mankind.

Jesus also called the Father his God. So is this an exception to the below? One person of the triune God praying to another person in triune God and calling Him God?

In Ephesians 1:17, Paul says, "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better." There is a hierarchy in the Godhead just as there is in the human family to Christ. Wives submit to their husbands who submit to Christ. As Diamond already stated, Scripture tells us that we are all equal in the sight of God, whether slave or free, male or female, Jew or gentile, we are all one in Christ Jesus. WRT Jesus referring to the Father as God, Gill's exposition explains:

I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God; God was his Father, not by creation, as he is to angels, and the souls of men, and therefore is called the Father of spirits; nor by adoption, as he is to the saints; nor with respect to the incarnation of Christ, for, as man, he had no father; or with regard to his office as Mediator, for as such he was a servant, and not a Son; but he was his Father by nature, or with regard to his divine person, being begotten of him, and so his own proper Son, and he his own proper Father; which hold forth the natural and eternal sonship of Christ, his equality with him, and distinction from him: and God was the Father of his disciples by adopting grace, in virtue of the covenant of grace made with Christ, and through their spiritual relation to him, as the natural and eternal Son of God: God the Father is the God of Christ as man, who prepared, formed, anointed, supported, and glorified his human nature; and in which nature, he prayed to him as his God, believed in him, loved and obeyed him as such; wherefore the Jew (o) very wrongly infers from hence, that he is not God, because the God of Israel was his God; since this is spoken of him as he is man: and he was the God of his disciples, in and by the covenant of grace made with Christ, as their head and representative; so that their interest in God, as their covenant God and Father, was founded upon his being the God and Father of Christ, and their relation to, and concern with him; and which therefore must be firm and lasting, and will hold as long as God is the God and Father of Christ: this was good news to be brought to his disciples; which, as it carried the strongest marks of affection, and expressions of nearness of relation; and implied, that he was now risen from the dead; so it signified, that he should ascend to God, who stood in the same relation to them, as to him; when he should use all his interest and influence on their behalf, whilst they were on earth; and when the proper time was come for a remove, that they might be with him, and with his God and Father and theirs, where they would be to all eternity.

“Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons yet ALL THREE have all the Attributes, Powers and Names of Deity, ie. Jehovah. That IS the definition of the Trinity and I can't think of a better way of expressing this truth.”

The problem is not with me “conflating “ or “dividing” or whatever but that the trinity doctrine just cannot be made to fit the reality of the Scriptures.

And yet, that is all that we have been doing here, quoting Scripture after Scripture, along with exploration of the Greek and Hebrew words and phrases that absolutely DO fit the reality of the doctrine of the Trinity. All it seems that you have been doing is taking pieces of verses and then trying to explain "logically" how they could possibly make sense. But that is the problem, nobody is expected to fully comprehend the nature of our great God and Savior - we haven't the brain power to do that. What we do have is the word of God by which we can acknowledge what he has chosen to show us and tell us about Himself and we have the obligation to trust Him and believe in what He has said. Neither I nor any other person here can make you receive this truth, but I do believe that anyone who diligently seeks to know the truth WILL find it and it will come when the Holy Spirit illuminates it for them. I sincerely pray you do find it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.